The regular expression engine and large number support are simply not broadly representative of Ruby performance, and do little to refute empirical observations of properly representative benchmarks and the many educated critiques of Ruby's implementation.
Your final example of development time is wholly unrelated to runtime implementation performance, and its use as a justification to assuage cognitive dissonance is predicated on a false dilemma -- that a language can not both support rapid development and a well performing runtime.
It is not necessary to introduce a false dilemma to justify an individual preference for Ruby development, in spite of its measured performance.
Your final example of development time is wholly unrelated to runtime implementation performance, and its use as a justification to assuage cognitive dissonance is predicated on a false dilemma -- that a language can not both support rapid development and a well performing runtime.
It is not necessary to introduce a false dilemma to justify an individual preference for Ruby development, in spite of its measured performance.